So here’s a delightfully uncomfortable question: should we give Élisabeth Lévy any money?
First of all, an important clarification: obviously, we’re not giving Élisabeth Lévy pocket money so she can carry on buying cigarettes, books by Finkielkraut or whatever else one might imagine her buying. The donations suggested are intended to support *Causeur* and are channelled, in particular, through the ‘J’aime l’info’ scheme; the magazine also offers support subscriptions.
The distinction is not merely a legal one. It changes the whole issue.
Because saving *Causeur* is not the same as saving Élisabeth Lévy. It is a question of deciding whether a newspaper—whose positions one might well dispute—nevertheless deserves to continue to exist.
And on that point, my answer is generally yes.
Not because Causeur is right. Certainly not always. Not because Élisabeth Lévy is some kind of high priestess of truth who has descended to Earth to bring order to our poor, foggy minds. And even less so because the French right currently lacks a platform.
But because a country in which only those media outlets with which we agree survive is becoming intellectually bleak at a rather spectacular rate.
Causeur is irritating. So much the better.
It sometimes irritates the left, sometimes the centre, often progressives and occasionally part of the right itself. The magazine, moreover, embraces this culture of ‘civilised rowdiness’ and presents itself as a space where disagreement is part of the game.
One might smile at this self-promotion. All newspapers love to present themselves as free, independent, courageous and indispensable to democracy. Rarely as ‘a vaguely repetitive magazine that you might as well let die’.
But one essential point remains: intellectual diversity cannot be defended only when it concerns the ideas we like.
I want *Libération* to exist even when *Libération* exasperates me. I want *L’Humanité* to exist. I want *Le Figaro* to exist. I want Charlie Hebdo, Marianne, Mediapart, Valeurs actuelles and Causeur, precisely because I have no desire to live in a world where an invisible committee has decided on my behalf which opinions are economically worthy of survival.
There is, however, a slight fly in the ointment.
Causeur isn’t exactly three broke students printing a fanzine in a cellar.
The magazine is now owned by the company Cantio. In the summer of 2026, this company had a share capital in excess of 2.5 million euros. L’Informé had also reported in 2024 how the holding company had benefited from a significant capital increase in 2023, thanks to the involvement of investors with considerable resources.
And at this point, the reader is perfectly entitled to ask: why me?
Why should someone who counts every penny spent at the supermarket put twenty or fifty euros into a media outlet whose ownership structure has already welcomed wealthy individuals?
It is a legitimate question.
All the more so as Causeur’s most recent detailed financial statements do not allow the public to gauge the current situation precisely: the 2024 and 2025 accounts were indeed filed, but accompanied by a confidentiality declaration. Public data nevertheless reveal a long-standing fragility. This does not in itself prove that Causeur is currently on the brink of closure, but it does show that the publication’s financial difficulties did not arise last Tuesday.
And this is precisely where Élisabeth Lévy’s SOS appeal could be more effective.
A little more transparency.
Exactly how much is needed?
100,000 euros? 300,000? A million?
To reach what milestone?
How many subscribers are still needed?
How much does the newspaper actually cost each month?
What happens if the target isn’t met?
When readers become almost like emotional shareholders in a media outlet, it’s only natural that they should ask for more than just a vague ‘trust us’.
But does that mean we should just let *Causeur* die?
No.
In fact, there’s a much healthier way to support it than making a donation: buying it.
Subscribing.
Giving money in exchange for something.
A newspaper.
Articles.
Writers.
Ideas with which you can vehemently disagree whilst sitting on your sofa.
It’s probably even the best solution to the economic problems facing the entire press. Ideally, a sustainable newspaper should depend neither on the likeable billionaire of the moment, nor on a constant fundraising drive, nor on the charity of readers who panic every six months. It should have enough readers willing to pay a few euros because they consider what it produces to be of value.
Unfortunately, the digital age has accustomed us to an absurdity: news should be free, journalists properly paid, websites fast, ad-free, independent of financial powers and available round the clock.
Economically speaking, it’s a bit like dining at an excellent restaurant and telling the waiter that you’re a huge supporter of fine dining but would prefer not to pay the bill.
So should we give money to Élisabeth Lévy?
Personally, I’d tweak the proposal slightly.
Don’t necessarily give money to *Causeur*.
Buy *Causeur*.
Take out a subscription for a few months. Actually read it. Applaud some of the articles. Mentally curse the others. Perhaps write to the paper to say that you think one editorial is brilliant and another is complete rubbish.
And then decide whether it’s worth your money.
Because, deep down, the disappearance of a newspaper we hate should almost worry us more than that of one we love.
A newspaper that reflects who we are reassures us.
A newspaper that annoys us sometimes forces us to think.
And of the two, it is perhaps the latter that we need most today.
That said, if you really want to support the independent press without spending three days wondering whether you’re funding Élisabeth Lévy, there’s a much simpler solution: read and support Le Mague.
It’s free, it annoys everyone in a fairly even-handed way and, until proven otherwise, no one has yet set up a fundraising campaign to save us.
So save *Causeur* if you feel so inclined.
But above all, read *Le Mague*.
You never know: with time, you might even develop a taste for bad company.
